Miguel:
>If the augment is etymologically connected with the Luwian sentence
>connecting particle a- (Hittite nu-), then the augment
>is not lost in Anatolian, but preserved in its earlier, original
>function (preterite "and then" *h1e-, presentic "and now" *nu-).
>If so, the injunctive can still have been the unmarked default
>form, in opposition to a _progressive_ marked with *-i: e.g. *h1es-m "I am
>/ I was" vs. *h1es-m-i "I am / was (in) being".
Yes, and tense was originally unmarked. Aorists naturally have
a past meaning too, and interestingly they are given secondary
endings as we find for the past tense.
As for the *e- augment, I think it originally meant more like
"at the time or place". In other words, it was a locative
particle with a general deixis, not a distal one. In this way,
we can also blame *?ego "I", or literally "my being here", on
the same *e with a sense of "at this place". Giving *e a specific
distal deixis hampers this etymological relationship.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus